Yes, valid info. This is a database. It stores data. In this particular case, about, among other things, people who worked on movies, series and video games. Someone's name as well as someone's birth name is data. It is stored in a database.

WTF do you knowing someones dead name?

I think that for literally 99 per cent of all famous people, it's easy to find out their birth names. So knowing the birth name of someone in this database is not that weird.

You are here to look up movies

Among other things. People are also here to look up actors, or directors, or simply people with whom they share a birthday. As founder and current CEO of IMDb, Col Needham, once said "IMDb means different things to different people."

what you want is one of those investigation sites so you can dox people and harass them.

If you are actually accusing people on this board of wanting to dox or harass people, you are way out of line and I feel you should take it back and apologize.

Well, partly, but more that a fan movie site, IMDb is a database (guess what the Db in the name IMDb stand for :) ) about films, tv series and video games and the people who worked on them. Obviously, such a database will draw a lot of fans of a lot of movies, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a database.

not the FBI Luke.

You do realize that lots of internet sites mention birth names of well-known people don't you?

A database is neutral. It doesn't judge. It doesn't give one group of people an advantage or a disadvantage. It doesn't have an opinion about the people it lists, be they marginalized or not. A database does not marginalize people. Other people do that. And that is terrible and should be stopped. But not allowing people to talk and know about FACTS is always the wrong answer, no matter what the question is.

Birth names ﻿can ﻿be used to hurt people, but stating that birth names are always used to hurt people is just nonsense and I think you know that. IMDb doesn't use birth names to hurt people. Other people might use these names to hurt people, but that can't and shouldn't be blamed on an impartial database, it should be blamed on the people who willingly hurt other people.

Birth names ﻿can ﻿be used to hurt people, but stating that birth names are always used to hurt people is just nonsense and I think you know that. IMDb doesn't use birth names to hurt people. Other people might use these names to hurt people, but that can't and shouldn't be blamed on an impartial database, it should be blamed on the people who willingly hurt other people.

”The IMDb spokesperson also said for birth name removal requests pertaining to titles in which a person was credited on-screen as their birth name, their credited name will remain listed in the credits section of applicable IMDb name and title pages in parentheses.”

If someone was credited under their birth (or other former) name, then the credited name will still appear for credit identification purposes along with the current name (but the birth name will not appear in the biography section if requested).

If someone was not ever credited under their birth name, and all of the other conditions apply, then you won't see the birth name anymore.

The way I see it is, if IMDb caves for this.. soon other people in the industry will request removals of other valid information, then pretty much anyone will be able to remove whatever they want.. this new policy completely defeats the purpose of building a database.. it’s supposed to build and keep a permanent catalog of all things for film, tv shows and video games.. that’s its purpose

Nikolay, sentiment in America by your everyday American has been against very small special interest groups having their way at all, in the enactment of laws (Government) and policy changes (Private Sector) by way of Bully Tactics. If you will have noticed only Kelli and two others came here and kicked the hornets nest on this very subject. I am part of the majority, yet my voice is not to be considered in any fashion. Only the minority rules. When this happens, you get a lot of rude and angry people on facebook. They are outraged at IMDb. While IMDb catered to a very small segment of the population and caved in on this fearing a loss of income if they did not, it will most likely have that loss of income from the backlash of the Majority. And probably lose more than they feared losing by implementing this policy change.

Can a staff member please confirm this: So to be absolutely clear, will this new policy regarding name changes, will it affect film titles, tv shows and video game staying on imdb permanently? Film titles, tv shows and video games staying on imdb for good will never change, correct?

As documented on the site, we will now review requests to remove a birth name from a person's biographical details if the birth name is not broadly publicly known (i.e. it's not already widely recognized and available elsewhere through sources such as major reference sites or publications) and if the person no longer voluntarily uses it (i.e. only uses their birth name when compelled to do so by government/legal requirements, but not in other aspects of their daily or professional life).

Names listed in filmography credits for titles in which the person was credited under their birth name will continue to be displayed. This is in order to continue providing IMDb’s hundreds of millions of customers worldwide with comprehensive information about film and TV credits, thereby preserving the factual historical record by accurately reflecting what is listed on-screen.

Dear Giancarlo Cairella, Official RepThey are transsexual . REMOVE THE DEAD NAMING YOU HAVE PLAGUED THEM WITH FOR 15 YEARS. You have been the single source of harassment for transgender community because no other site does what you do . I hope Glaad continues the lawsuit because CLEARLY you have not learned a thing Economically you have caused massive discrimination against them .

"if the person no longer voluntarily uses it "

Is this as joke? Whether they have to use it for any reason is none of your business. There are legal issues that are none of your damn business.

"in order to continue providing IMDb’s hundreds of millions of customers worldwide with comprehensive information"

That is the biggest joke of all. You are a fan site and you use IMDB Pro to extort money out of people simply to control their own data. No person should have argue that they have changed their name then watch you pull out those old names to abuse them with like it is some kind of "pure data collection".

"hereby preserving the factual historical record "

That is utter BS. Laverne Cox being Laverne Cox on previous films does not alter the films credits. You do not create or alter credits, you track them. Laverne Cox does not become a different person. It is an absurd argument. Historical record. For what when NY falls and we become the Planet if the Apes?

As documented on the site, we will now review requests to remove a birth name from a person's biographical details if the birth name is not broadly publicly known (i.e.
it's not already widely recognized and available elsewhere through
sources such as major reference sites or publications) and if the person
no longer voluntarily uses it (i.e. only uses their
birth name when compelled to do so by government/legal requirements, but
not in other aspects of their daily or professional life).

So what you're saying is that birth names can be removed, even if they're factual?Doesn't that go against the fundamental concept of a database? Isn't IMDb undermining IMDb here?

Maybe I missed something, but I don't believe anybody said they aren't.

REMOVE THE DEAD NAMING YOU HAVE PLAGUED THEM WITH FOR 15 FKING YEARS.

Shouting and cursing is rather unbecoming.

You have been the single source of harassment for transgender community

You have quite some nerve accusing a database that publishes data of harassment. If you don't want a database stating facts, I genuinely feel sorry for you.

Is this as joke?

That's what I thought when I first heard about this ridiculous policy change, but for a totally different reason.

That is the biggest joke of all.

Are you saying that you know what it is all these hundreds of millions of people look up while they're on IMDb?

You are a fan site

Database.

you use IMDB Pro to extort money out of people simply to control their own data.

You don't have to use IMDbPro you know. If you deserve an IMDb name page, you will get one. And on regular IMDb, your name and some information about you will be visible, whether or not you have IMDbPro doesn't change that.

to abuse them

Why do you consider it abuse that a database stores birth names of the people in the database? There's no shame in one's birth name. It's the name one is given around the time of their birth, nothing more, nothing less. There is no abuse in stating the fact of one's birth name, and especially not for a database.

I'm in favor of IMDb allowing workaday non-celebrity actors and crew to remove personal information, such as birth names and ages, from the database. Anyone can make a YouTube video and put in on IMDb. What's to stop someone from thanking an enemy in his YouTube video, which allows him to create an IMDb name page for the guy, and put out his personal information?

But IMDb is only allowing the removal of one kind of personal information. And they're doing it because they caved in to a pressure group. I'm against caving in to pressure groups.

I hope IMDb notices that they gained NOTHING through this decision. One of the pressure groups is already calling the decision "a half-measure." The more they cave in, the more the pressure groups will demand more caving.

IMDb gets used as a resume in the entertainment industry, and the previous policy assisted discrimination of trans people in the industry. Lots of people who are "workaday non-celebrity actors and crew" were negatively affected by IMDb's previous policy. Also, IMDb assisted in discrimination, and to an extent still does, of people who work additional jobs outside of the entertainment industry as "workaday non-celebrities," along with other issues such as housing discrimination.

What if it was a news article in the Hollywood Reporter about that work-a-day actor. And what IS the definition of celebrity. If one person celebrates your existence, then you are celebrated. I was a minor celebrity in Drag Racing and in the Nightclub Industry in Denver in the 80's and 90's. I have signed a whole whopping 5 autographs on racing programs. So in reality celebrity is interpreted by an individual and not to be defined by an arbitrary policy.

Emma Arpin, just my five cents but I always thought of IMDb being used as a resume as a side effect. It was and is, first and foremost, a database. So from my point of view the process is a bit similar to, say, taking a dictionary or encyclopedia, or an archive and replacing all the legit info with resumes, with no discretion as to whether those are correct or not. It happened before you know. It, with people like Quentin Tarantino falsely putting credits/roles in Dawn of the Dead (1978) and King Lear (1987) on his resume, knowing they would be a hard thing to verify. They then ended up being on Leonard Maltin's Movie and Video Guide and are still surface from time to time as a false fact. That is exactly what happens when people mostly treat databases and encyclopedias as promotional instruments.

I'm a strong supporter of (film/TV/video games) cast & crew credits, trivia and all the other info related to actual filmmaking process. People should recognize the historical value of IMDb, it's already huge. IMDb is not a CV or resume service (altough, as said many times before, people can of course use the site for that) and it shouldn't be controlled by agents, PR people, "Hollywood" executives or any "pressure groups" (all this generally speaking - there are total professionals in every area).

But sure, I can see the various problems related to information such as birth dates, residence, the names of a spouse and children, info of ex-wives-husbands/girl-boyfriends, divorces, criminal record issues (since now even an accusation seems to be enough - people want to add that to trivia or to biography), etc. Also "biography" is one of those areas where problems can arise quite easily. I personally feel that there's a difference between "biography" and "professional biography" and I support the latter.

I don't have any real answers, however, and I'm not sure that is this decision a good or bad thing for IMDb (maybe a bit of both?). But I do understand some issues behind it. Internet is a pretty nasty and dark place, especially nowadays. IMDb shouldn't give any additional "tools" for abuse. At least they should be very cautious with biography/trivia/etc information that is considered more "personal" than "professional" (there's a very fine line sometimes, but it's often there).

Your comment that "IMDb is not a CV or resume service" is wrong because of imdbpro. What's funny is I almost was going to comment yesterday regarding that the only reason this occurred is because imdb now gets paid by some. If it didn't, I bet the names would be there forever. Not saying if that's right or wrong, just the way it is.

Eboy They are EXACTLY the same thing. IMDB PRO just allows pictures and self editing. Linkedin has since taken over as IMDB is intractable. There you edit your own work without nerds screaming about missing details.

Yes, but so far IMDb has been successful in that case. The State of California passed a law which would have required IMDb to remove birthdates in some cases. IMDb sued to have the law declared unconstitutional, and the district court found in favor of IMDb.

The case is on appeal, though. There will be a hearing in the Court of Appeals next month.

In case you are looking for more information about that case, it is called IMDb.com, Inc. v. Becerra.

Ideologues are already requesting - no, demanding - that certain movies, TV shows and video games be removed from IMDb for political reasons. The question is not whether the demands will be made, the question is whether IMDb will cave in to them.

Exactly.. at that point, what use is a database if all you’re gonna do is remove information from it? You cannot be the Internet’s most comprehensive database about movies if you end up removing data..

Deadnaming people—and in the case of this specific policy change people who were not widely known to the public by their deadname—does not add to a movie database. However, it does assist discrimination against trans people in employment, housing, etc.

Luke, this is not about politics, it is about discrimination. You are talking about the trivial facts about fantasy. No one lives or dies when names are changed, real people die, go homeless loss jobs and family when they aren't

Ed Jones (XLIX) you know you are an idiot right? You know that when you walk into a room that people start whispering because they know who you are. You live on this forum. It is your life. You don't have one otherwise. The people you are talking about with your powerless voice do . 15,000 posts, unf***kingbelievable. Get out, meet a girl or guy, get a life.

"Ideologues are already requesting - no, demanding - that certain movies, TV shows and video games be removed" J. You know the difference between real people and movies right ? You seem to be blurring the line.

LOL. You really seem to be taking this very personally when to the best of my recollection of what I've seen that's not been the angle.So somebody taking the position that true info should be kept is a bad person to be attacked personally. All at the same time you argue that keeping accurate info is de facto attacking someone.And criticizing someone personally by their # of posts which you've had 10 posts in one day would mean that you're living on here.

And then to top it all off you pull out the race card to try and shame someone. Be proud of your position, be respectful, and quit trying to drag the argument into the muck.

As i said.. my only issue is what this could lead to.. people requesting to take down their names.. then their ages, what happens when people start demanding their films, tv shows or video games be taken down??

As i said.. my only issue is what this could lead to.. people requesting to take down their names.. then their ages, what happens when people start demanding their films, tv shows or video games be taken down??

What happened to posts disappearing??? Very odd.And PPP you are ignoring my question about the sentence I didn't understand because it looked like it got clipped. I'm trying to listen to your argument, but you aren't making it easy.

What happened to posts disappearing??? Very odd.And PPP you are ignoring my question about the sentence I didn't understand because it looked like it got clipped. I'm trying to listen to your argument, but you aren't making it easy.

I've not expressed any opinion regarding this new policy because I don't understand all the angles of it. (Until yesterday I had never heard of the term deadnaming). So thx for calling me an asshole. Been awhile that I've had a teen throwing names at me and it's just as funny now as it was then. All you're doing is prove my point that you're taking this personally which destroys your ability to make any good argument.

My bad. Sorry 15 posts in 60 minutes. That's not overkill. LOLSo in less than an hour you started calling me curse names and going to the lowest denominator of using race baiting. I was in the navy, attached to marines, so trust me I've been called everything in the book and it doesn't bother me in the least.I'll at least say this, Ed can be sharp-tongued, but don't recall him calling people names.

But if it makes you feel better PPP, go ahead and call me names. I can tell this is a very personal, troubling issue for you for which I'm sorry for you. I'd really like to understand the angles as it's not something I'm familiar with. I've only known one person who was trans and that was about 20 years ago. She was a friend and a fellow vet, and times or people were different because none of us cared. So it's something I'm ignorant about, but would like to understand. So try and make a cogent, non-personal counter-argument vs saying someone is a curse word, bad person, or a bigot.

Spoken like a true under-educated "I"100,000 equals 11 years and appox 5 months. That's based on a 24 hour day.I own a business. I'm semi retired. I unlike you can multitask. I help people. You complain and are here to accomplish what? You have no agenda other that to agitate.You are failing to do one thing correctly.You have used crude language. You have demonstrated what our modern academia churns out. Every post you make embarrasses you and no one else. You are not capable of slinging an arrow in anyone's direction with anything that resembles a coherent well formed thought. Your 100,000 hours blunder is proof of your incapability to speak with any authority that commands any respect.

Absolutely hilarious. I could not write a character so unaware if i tried. Thanks for the inspiration. Will have a character based on you in a short shortly! Keep on writing! It's Reese Witherspoonishnesly awesome!

Would you rather me make up having a dozen trans friends?? Again you're just attacking someone. And PPP I've only seen one post where you've tried to make any argument, but you started it off with cursing. And deny it all you want, your post did call me a name.Frankly this isn't an issue that impacts me regardless. My friend committed suicide but it had nothing to do with being trans but instead with ptsd. But I should also say that I may have met other people that were trans but didn't know. It's not something I care about. Kind of like someone saying they're taking a particular point of view and being nasty from the start. It makes me care much less about their position. Thus far I've not seen anything that is persuasive that the actual names in credits shouldn't be listed.﻿

No, you won't. You might try but it will be Ed Wood. Let me describe my character. 40 years in the business, supervisor, member of the Academy, negotiated with unions. 26 features, worked in Europe and every major in the US and Canada. Bow go write it Hemingway.

No,
you won't. You might try but it will be Ed Wood. Let me describe my
character. 40 years in the business, supervisor, member of the Academy,
negotiated with unions. 26 features, worked in Europe and every major
in the US and Canada. Bow go write it Hemingway.

"My friend committed suicide but it had nothing to do with being trans but instead with ptsd."

Well Dr Freud, so you KNOW it had nothing to do with her being trans, just PTSD. Excuse me if your assessment of a transgender persons motivations for suicide are laughable. So 20 years ago when people and the government were openly discrimination against trans people you somehow convinced yourself her suicide had NOTHING TO DO WITH BRING TRANSGENDER! You are a piece of work.

PPP/snowflake,I didn't see this until now, and was going to ignore it, but just for the record she left a note. She had served in Vietnam and was haunted by what someone who has been in a war is haunted by. I know you know nothing of this because none of your comments reflect anything indicative you ever served, but that was your choice as was mine, my friend's, and many others who choose to serve so you could voice opinions.As to the trans issue impacting the suicide, I guess I choose to assume that being in war had nothing related to her trans gender because if it did, then the whole concept of trans would be blown up because it's supposed to be about something more fundamental than just a tragic issue.So again you fail to speak with anything inteligent, and no matter what name you choose to be here as, you fail to make any persuasive arguments as to the actual harm done to anyone is. In fact I found a blog that gave me the best argument related to removing birth names and it's based on that unlike a stage name, someone who is trans it's not a stage name but a more fundamental name change as it's associated with a sexual identity change. Now that argument alone doesn't convince me that imdb should change it's policy, but it's a good argument and start.See unlike you, I like to be informed and persuaded before making a decision. And again I'm going to ignore you, although I wish I could just block you.

Tom? Where are you? You are here for this specific reason.Waiting for your reaction to the Princesses abusive diatribe.The last instance took 6 hours.Faster than staff, but too slow in real time. We need three Toms!

There you go again making it personal. Not sure how old you are, but if you ever had classes in debate you'd know that isn't the way to win your argument. It only alienates people to your point of view. You've not convinced me of anything except to raise your point of view to a higher bar.

MikeTheWhistle you seem to think you are the "decider". That I NEEEEED to convince you. I don't. The lawsuit finally convinced Bezos. Didn't have to ask your opinion at all did we? Take your bar.... and shove it.

There you go again being nasty.And I wasn't aware there was any lawsuit over this issue.As to my opinion, you had stated that I expressed an opinion which I had not until all this garbage you've slung which makes me believe that the counter-argument that the names on titles should be kept is appropriate if you can't make a cogent argument.I'm done in this banter with you. I feel sorry for you that this is the way you act. It's just sad and if this is how you try to persuade people I hope that if there is a court case you're not called as a witness because you will lose the jury who's opinion does matter.I wish you the best and hope that you can get some help for your situation.﻿

I AM NOT TRYING TO PERSUADE YOU! I HAVE NOTHING TO GAIN FROM PERSUADING YOU OR ANY OTHER PREJUDICE PERSON ON THIS FORUM! ! You aren't a jury, you decide nothing. You just purvey your common ignorance to other ignorant people who validate your ignorance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BBvIweCIgwk

People are upset because the issue is quite personal for a lot of people, MikeTheWhistle.

Yes, this is a small step toward fixing the problem. However, listing deadnames in previous credits brings up all sorts of problems, including young people who made projects in their teens with friends before they were working professionally. They would be followed by their deadname and face discrimination in the industry, side jobs, and housing. IMDb significantly lowered the bar for what qualifies for listings some years ago, around when they still ran the now failed Withoutabox.

There are other fixes, including using the most recent credit, not the first credit, which would allow the database to stay accurate, in fact more accurate.

However, listing deadnames in previous credits brings up all sorts of problems

﻿So after this, there are more facts you feel should be removed from the database. And after that, perhaps you feel people should be able to remove their date of birth? Or do you feel that I Am Not Your Negro () should be called I Am Not Your N-word? You can't have a proper functioning database and at the same time please every group of people who - for whatever reasons, some of them perhaps even rather understandable - wants to delete information from that database. You have to choose, you can't have both.

However, listing deadnames in previous credits brings up all sorts of problems

﻿So after this, there are more facts you feel should be removed from the database. And after that, perhaps you feel people should be able to remove their date of birth? Or do you feel that I Am Not Your Negro () should be called I Am Not Your N-word? You can't have a proper functioning database and at the same time please every group of people who - for whatever reasons, some of them perhaps even rather understandable - wants to delete information from that database. You have to choose, you can't have both.

Hey Kati.You only came here to gloat at your victory.You need not have come here at all.You could have remained silent.You came here for one purpose.You saw me replying and could not resist harassing me.Well you got a couple of others here that don't like this idea of the far left in this country bullying corporations. Especially a very small fringe of the population mind you.That you were not counting on. Were you.I shall no longer reply.You have become repetitive and petty.

Busy boy."Ed Jones (XLIX) has unrelentingly cyberbullied me into trying to stop an investigationI have been the victim of an unrelenting attack of ridicule and harassment and belittling to try and stop me investigating a company registered with IMDb."

Kati, the Princess has been suspended.Your rhetoric I believed emboldened the Princesses behavior. She no longer has a voice here because she assumed that your bad behavior and usage of colorful metaphors was acceptable.You are responsible.You should apologize publicly to her and to anyone else here you have insulted with your name calling and unfounded accusations.

Snowflake, Kati (and even Princess Perky Pants): You guys just keep on being disrespectful without adding any new information or points of view. I think there are quite some issues you all have to work out for yourselves, away from this forum. I won't respond to any more of your posts because I don't see the point in it, but I really do hope that in real life you are not so extremely bitter as you seem to be on this forum.

This is Proof Positive that IMDb should not have made this change at all. Accommodating .6% of the population has now caused a false belief that 4 or 5 people can effect change. IMDb needs to reverse their decision on this and stick to their longstanding policy

IMDb aims to be the most comprehensive and reliable source of
information on movies, TV and celebrities. We are committed to accuracy
and it is our longstanding policy not to alter or remove correct
factual information from our records.

Self-determination refers to the ability to govern oneself and have
one’s freedoms curtailed only through the laws that one consents to. It
is arguably a good thing, since it maximizes personal autonomy in a
society of conflicting interests. Majority-rule ensures that in any such
clash of interests, more people ‘get their way’ than people who do not.
This in turn increases the overall welfare of society.

On the contrary, it may be argued that counter-majoritarian solutions
necessarily cheats a community of its sense of common adventure.

2. Majority-rule is likely to provide middle ground solutions

According to Anthony Downs’ Median Voter Theory,
political preferences tend to be distributed over a single peaked
‘bell’ curve; the median voter will therefore be pivotal in securing a
majority. Hence, majority-rule will tend to create middle ground
solutions, which is arguably better than ‘radical’ outcomes.

3. Majority-rule is more likely than not to produce the ‘right’ answer to political questions

Based on Condorcet’s jury theorem, by applying the law of large numbers,
if there are right answers to political questions, voters are more
likely than not to identify them. This is because, while there will
always be many people who will ‘get it wrong’, over the large number of
decision-makers, more likely than not, people will get it right. For
example, rarely do radical and destructive political systems arise out
of majority rule. Yet, history is full of examples of oppressive regimes
arising out of dictatorships.

4. Majority-rule is just

Majority-rule treats everyone equally. Allowing minorities to succeed
would mean treating each of their votes as carrying more weight than
members of the majority. This is wrong, since it fails to accord to the
majority the equal respect they deserve as citizens in a political
community.

The case against majority-rule

1. Majority-rule does not necessarily protect minority rights

The idea behind rights is that there are certain interests that we
consider ‘overriding demands’. These are attributed to individuals in a
society out of respect for their position as citizens, and their status
as human beings. These rights are a constraint on society’s use of
political power. However, majority-rule can deprive minorities of these
rights. Take for example, the right to vote being denied to
African-Americans for most of the USA’s history.

Hence, the argument that majority rule is just because it treats
everyone equally falls apart when we observe the way permanent
minorities can, and have been treated, such that they are stripped of
their rights and denied a say in the laws they live under.

2. Majority-rule does not necessarily maximize self-determination or welfare

This is because of what is called the “secession paradox”.
Majoritarian decision making presupposes the existence of a political
unit, but says nothing about why that unit should be defined in any
particular way. If 40% of a population constantly lives under laws they
do not like, it is wrong to say that self-determination is maximized
because 60% get their way. Instead, self-determination is maximized if
the two groups separated, such that everybody would live under laws of
their choosing. Whenever there is conflict, this can keep happening, up
to the point where the benefits of co-operating with people one
disagrees with outweighs the benefits of sovereignty.

In any case, it is argued that more people getting their way does not
necessarily need to maximum welfare. Imagine that out of 10 people, 6
of them gain 1 unit of happiness if policy A was chosen, while the
remaining 4 gain 10 units of happiness if policy A was not chosen. If
welfare maximization is our goal, policy A should not be chosen. Yet,
majority-rule says it should.

3. Majority-rule leads to disproportionate outcomes

Imagine two groups of people: economizers and conservationists. The
former favours relentless economic growth while the latter favours
environmental conservation. Economizers constitute 3/4 of the
population, and conservationists constitute the remaining 1/4. Imagine
there are 4 policy decisions of equal weight to be made; surely it is
disproportionate that the economizers get their way on all 4 occasions.
The proportionate outcome should be the economizers having their way
only 3/4 of the time, or that each policy decision go only 3/4 of the
way. Either solution is preferable to the winner-takes-all solution that
majority-rule leads to.

4. Majority-rule reduces deliberation and compromise

A healthy majority has no incentive to accommodate, engage or
convince permanent minorities, since they have the numbers to win every
election. Deliberation and engagement is good, since it fosters sincere
political discussions about important issues and leads to better
policies. This is because, the practice of presenting reasons in the
process of engagement and deliberation increases the likelihood that
people are making sincere representations for the common good and allows
proposals to be subject to scrutiny, and accepted or rejected on the
strength of its reasons.

It also ensures that those in the minority are not denied the respect
they deserve as equal members of a political community, and that their
views and grievances are listened and responded to. This is important
because a decision by a majority can only be seen as a decision on
behalf of the entire political unit if all members, including members of
the minority, see themselves as a meaningful part of that unit.

5. Majority-rule does not necessarily lead to right answers, if there even is such a thing as ‘right’ answers

Indeed, where large groups of independent thinkers are concerned,
right answers are much more likely to arise than wrong ones. However,
Condorcet developed his theorem in the 19th century; in our
interconnected world today, there is much greater scope for propaganda
and demagoguery than before.

Furthermore, there are often no ‘right’ answers in politics. Politics
is not a scientific exercise oriented towards the pursuit of objective
truth. In many conflicts, there are no right answers – merely a conflict
of interests or ideas. For example, in terms of choosing between
greater economic growth and therefore allowing income inequality to
increase, or, reducing income inequality at the expense of slower
economic growth, there is no right answer – it is a question of what people want.

Conclusion

I hope that the arguments above demonstrate that the appropriateness
majority-rule as a form of decision-making is not as clear cut as many
people might think. Many complex issues are involved, and we need to
understand them in order to develop decision-making systems that serve
our community best.

As noted earlier, this article is not meant to be exhaustive, and has
probably left out some arguments that you might think of. For brevity, I
have also declined to provide a detailed elaboration of existing
arguments. Nonetheless, I hope that the ideas presented here will
feature in future discussions that engage issues pertaining to majority
decision-making, such as issues concerning ethnic, religious and sexual
minorities.

Federalist Papers: No. 10 – Full Text
The Union as a Safeguard Against Domestic Faction and Insurrection

To the People of the State of New York:

AMONG the numerous advantages promised by a well constructed Union,
none deserves to be more accurately developed than its tendency to break
and control the violence of faction. The friend of popular governments
never finds himself so much alarmed for their character and fate, as
when he contemplates their propensity to this dangerous vice. He will
not fail, therefore, to set a due value on any plan which, without
violating the principles to which he is attached, provides a proper cure
for it. The instability, injustice, and confusion introduced into the
public councils, have, in truth, been the mortal diseases under which
popular governments have everywhere perished; as they continue to be the
favorite and fruitful topics from which the adversaries to liberty
derive their most specious declamations. The valuable improvements made
by the American constitutions on the popular models, both ancient and
modern, cannot certainly be too much admired; but it would be an
unwarrantable partiality, to contend that they have as effectually
obviated the danger on this side, as was wished and expected. Complaints
are everywhere heard from our most considerate and virtuous citizens,
equally the friends of public and private faith, and of public and
personal liberty, that our governments are too unstable, that the public
good is disregarded in the conflicts of rival parties, and that
measures are too often decided, not according to the rules of justice
and the rights of the minor party, but by the superior force of an
interested and overbearing majority. However anxiously we may wish that
these complaints had no foundation, the evidence, of known facts will
not permit us to deny that they are in some degree true. It will be
found, indeed, on a candid review of our situation, that some of the
distresses under which we labor have been erroneously charged on the
operation of our governments; but it will be found, at the same time,
that other causes will not alone account for many of our heaviest
misfortunes; and, particularly, for that prevailing and increasing
distrust of public engagements, and alarm for private rights, which are
echoed from one end of the continent to the other. These must be
chiefly, if not wholly, effects of the unsteadiness and injustice with
which a factious spirit has tainted our public administrations.

By a faction, I understand a number of citizens, whether amounting to
a majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adversed to the rights
of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the
community.

There are two methods of curing the mischiefs of faction: the one, by
removing its causes; the other, by controlling its effects.

There are again two methods of removing the causes of faction: the
one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the
other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions,
and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it
was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire,
an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less
folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because
it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air,
which is essential to animal life, because it imparts to fire its
destructive agency.

The second expedient is as impracticable as the first would be
unwise. As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at
liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as
the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his
opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each
other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach
themselves. The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights
of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a
uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first
object of government. From the protection of different and unequal
faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and
kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these
on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a
division of the society into different interests and parties.

The latent causes of faction are thus sown in the nature of man; and
we see them everywhere brought into different degrees of activity,
according to the different circumstances of civil society. A zeal for
different opinions concerning religion, concerning government, and many
other points, as well of speculation as of practice; an attachment to
different leaders ambitiously contending for pre-eminence and power; or
to persons of other descriptions whose fortunes have been interesting to
the human passions, have, in turn, divided mankind into parties,
inflamed them with mutual animosity, and rendered them much more
disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their
common good. So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual
animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the
most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle
their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. But
the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and
unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are
without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those
who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like
discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a
mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests,
grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into
different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The
regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the
principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party
and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his
interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt
his integrity. With equal, nay with greater reason, a body of men are
unfit to be both judges and parties at the same time; yet what are many
of the most important acts of legislation, but so many judicial
determinations, not indeed concerning the rights of single persons, but
concerning the rights of large bodies of citizens? And what are the
different classes of legislators but advocates and parties to the causes
which they determine? Is a law proposed concerning private debts? It is
a question to which the creditors are parties on one side and the
debtors on the other. Justice ought to hold the balance between them.
Yet the parties are, and must be, themselves the judges; and the most
numerous party, or, in other words, the most powerful faction must be
expected to prevail. Shall domestic manufactures be encouraged, and in
what degree, by restrictions on foreign manufactures? are questions
which would be differently decided by the landed and the manufacturing
classes, and probably by neither with a sole regard to justice and the
public good. The apportionment of taxes on the various descriptions of
property is an act which seems to require the most exact impartiality;
yet there is, perhaps, no legislative act in which greater opportunity
and temptation are given to a predominant party to trample on the rules
of justice. Every shilling with which they overburden the inferior
number, is a shilling saved to their own pockets.

It is in vain to say that enlightened statesmen will be able to
adjust these clashing interests, and render them all subservient to the
public good. Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm. Nor,
in many cases, can such an adjustment be made at all without taking into
view indirect and remote considerations, which will rarely prevail over
the immediate interest which one party may find in disregarding the
rights of another or the good of the whole.

The inference to which we are brought is, that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.

If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by
the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its
sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may
convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its
violence under the forms of the Constitution. When a majority is
included in a faction, the form of popular government, on the other
hand, enables it to sacrifice to its ruling passion or interest both the
public good and the rights of other citizens. To secure the public good
and private rights against the danger of such a faction, and at the
same time to preserve the spirit and the form of popular government, is
then the great object to which our inquiries are directed. Let me add
that it is the great desideratum by which this form of government can be
rescued from the opprobrium under which it has so long labored, and be
recommended to the esteem and adoption of mankind.

By what means is this object attainable? Evidently by one of two
only. Either the existence of the same passion or interest in a majority
at the same time must be prevented, or the majority, having such
coexistent passion or interest, must be rendered, by their number and
local situation, unable to concert and carry into effect schemes of
oppression. If the impulse and the opportunity be suffered to coincide,
we well know that neither moral nor religious motives can be relied on
as an adequate control. They are not found to be such on the injustice
and violence of individuals, and lose their efficacy in proportion to
the number combined together, that is, in proportion as their efficacy
becomes needful.

From this view of the subject it may be concluded that a pure
democracy, by which I mean a society consisting of a small number of
citizens, who assemble and administer the government in person, can
admit of no cure for the mischief's of faction. A common passion or
interest will, in almost every case, be felt by a majority of the whole;
a communication and concert result from the form of government itself;
and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker
party or an obnoxious individual. Hence it is that such democracies have
ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found
incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have
in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in
their deaths. Theoretic politicians, who have patronized this species of
government, have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a
perfect equality in their political rights, they would, at the same
time, be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their
opinions, and their passions.

A republic, by which I mean a government in which the scheme of
representation takes place, opens a different prospect, and promises the
cure for which we are seeking. Let us examine the points in which it
varies from pure democracy, and we shall comprehend both the nature of
the cure and the efficacy which it must derive from the Union.

The two great points of difference between a democracy and a republic
are: first, the delegation of the government, in the latter, to a small
number of citizens elected by the rest; secondly, the greater number of
citizens, and greater sphere of country, over which the latter may be
extended.

The effect of the first difference is, on the one hand, to refine and
enlarge the public views, by passing them through the medium of a
chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest
of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be
least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.
Under such a regulation, it may well happen that the public voice,
pronounced by the representatives of the people, will be more consonant
to the public good than if pronounced by the people themselves, convened
for the purpose. On the other hand, the effect may be inverted. Men of
factious tempers, of local prejudices, or of sinister designs, may, by
intrigue, by corruption, or by other means, first obtain the suffrages,
and then betray the interests, of the people. The question resulting is,
whether small or extensive republics are more favorable to the election
of proper guardians of the public weal; and it is clearly decided in
favor of the latter by two obvious considerations:

In the first place, it is to be remarked that, however small the
republic may be, the representatives must be raised to a certain number,
in order to guard against the cabals of a few; and that, however large
it may be, they must be limited to a certain number, in order to guard
against the confusion of a multitude. Hence, the number of
representatives in the two cases not being in proportion to that of the
two constituents, and being proportionally greater in the small
republic, it follows that, if the proportion of fit characters be not
less in the large than in the small republic, the former will present a
greater option, and consequently a greater probability of a fit choice.

In the next place, as each representative will be chosen by a greater
number of citizens in the large than in the small republic, it will be
more difficult for unworthy candidates to practice with success the
vicious arts by which elections are too often carried; and the suffrages
of the people being more free, will be more likely to centre in men who
possess the most attractive merit and the most diffusive and
established characters.

It must be confessed that in this, as in most other cases, there is a
mean, on both sides of which inconveniences will be found to lie. By
enlarging too much the number of electors, you render the
representatives too little acquainted with all their local circumstances
and lesser interests; as by reducing it too much, you render him unduly
attached to these, and too little fit to comprehend and pursue great
and national objects. The federal Constitution forms a happy combination
in this respect; the great and aggregate interests being referred to
the national, the local and particular to the State legislatures.

The other point of difference is, the greater number of citizens and
extent of territory which may be brought within the compass of
republican than of democratic government; and it is this circumstance
principally which renders factious combinations less to be dreaded in
the former than in the latter. The smaller the society, the fewer
probably will be the distinct parties and interests composing it; the
fewer the distinct parties and interests, the more frequently will a
majority be found of the same party; and the smaller the number of
individuals composing a majority, and the smaller the compass within
which they are placed, the more easily will they concert and execute
their plans of oppression. Extend the sphere, and you take in a greater
variety of parties and interests; you make it less probable that a
majority of the whole will have a common motive to invade the rights of
other citizens; or if such a common motive exists, it will be more
difficult for all who feel it to discover their own strength, and to act
in unison with each other. Besides other impediments, it may be
remarked that, where there is a consciousness of unjust or dishonorable
purposes, communication is always checked by distrust in proportion to
the number whose concurrence is necessary.

Hence, it clearly appears, that the same advantage which a republic
has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed
by a large over a small republic,–is enjoyed by the Union over the
States composing it. Does the advantage consist in the substitution of
representatives whose enlightened views and virtuous sentiments render
them superior to local prejudices and schemes of injustice? It will not
be denied that the representation of the Union will be most likely to
possess these requisite endowments. Does it consist in the greater
security afforded by a greater variety of parties, against the event of
any one party being able to outnumber and oppress the rest? In an equal
degree does the increased variety of parties comprised within the Union,
increase this security. Does it, in fine, consist in the greater
obstacles opposed to the concert and accomplishment of the secret wishes
of an unjust and interested majority? Here, again, the extent of the
Union gives it the most palpable advantage.

The influence of factious leaders may kindle a flame within their
particular States, but will be unable to spread a general conflagration
through the other States. A religious sect may degenerate into a
political faction in a part of the Confederacy; but the variety of sects
dispersed over the entire face of it must secure the national councils
against any danger from that source. A rage for paper money, for an
abolition of debts, for an equal division of property, or for any other
improper or wicked project, will be less apt to pervade the whole body
of the Union than a particular member of it; in the same proportion as
such a malady is more likely to taint a particular county or district,
than an entire State.

In the extent and proper structure of the Union, therefore, we behold
a republican remedy for the diseases most incident to republican
government. And according to the degree of pleasure and pride we feel in
being republicans, ought to be our zeal in cherishing the spirit and
supporting the character of Federalists.

This article in short says that compromise is the true path. Calm & collected differences need be presented respectfully.You must convince the majority of an overwhelming need for compromise. If you fail keep at it. But if you do not then you will initiate a breakdown of society as a whole and inevitably fail because of this discord. And if society as an established republic fails so does that radicalized minority that defied the majority. Your basic Lose, Lose scenario.

You are misinterpreting it. Plain and simple. You have a narrow prejudicial view on things in general. You site a leftest view as bad because it does not fit "Your" narrative. I can have a debate and not stoop to calling anyone a name. You however cannot.This is usually a sign of someone that is losing an argument.I can control myself. You however cannot.It makes you impossible to be found credible.Bye Bye

Princess Perky Pants, not arguing that, but there were credits which said Bruce Jenner. There's certain legality of name and credits in this world which I'm not too happy about myself, so saying that "there was no Bruce" just does not work in this world, figuartively. And yes, we live in an imperfect crapsack dystopian world in which most of Earth's population still have way too much problems which they should not. We should not have as much problems with legally confirming who we are and who we are not as well as having that much problems thinking about credits in movies.

Using your logic actual person named Divine never existed, but that's how Harris Glen Milstead was nearly always credited. And just in case: no, Divine reportedly never had GID, so in this case his birth name applies. Although IMDb trivia is perpetually confused and refers to Divine as both her and him, depending on perspective.

Look Nikolay Yeriomin (Mykola Yeromin), I don't have time to time to explain the difference between a drag queen and a transsexual. Divine was Glens character, he never changed his name, never claimed to be transsexual. To spend more time here when the ignorance is so deep is a waste. Bigots and the incompetent mod who doesn't know the job make the discussion impossible. Here in this world tyrants you do what you want. Lie, insult, make up bullshit.This is nothing but a fan run bullshit factory. Sorry but that is the truth. Have great day making up nonsense.

Snowflake is a 2010s derogatoryslang term for a person, implying that they have an inflated sense of uniqueness, an unwarranted sense of entitlement, or are overly-emotional, easily offended, and unable to deal with opposing opinions. Common usages include the terms special snowflake, Generation Snowflake, and snowflake as a politicized insult.

If you don't know when or where the term applies???????????????You have used another derogatory reference!Mirror Time!

IMDb needs to stop deadnaming trans people IMDb should not put trans people’s old names out there.The site should make an exception for the policy of not removing factual information, since this is extremely disrespectfulto all trans people working in the film industry....